Saturday, October 12, 2013

Socialism and capitalism are opposites. Socialism is an economic
system in which

the government owns or directly controls the means of
production. Socialism is based on force. Capitalism is an economic system in
which the means of production are privately owned and operated. Capitalism is
based on voluntary exchange. Some say that a blend of these two economic
systems is the solution to the world’s problems. They call for a “mixed
economy.” But mixing opposites is a recipe for disaster. Socialism (force)
and capitalism (voluntary exchange) are like oil and water, they do not mix.

Capitalism is the economic system that has created more
prosperity for more people than any economic system ever tried in the history
of mankind. Socialism, even when expertly administered has never created
prosperity. If you mix Capitalism (voluntary exchange) with Socialism (force)
you get a dysfunctional, special interest favoring, poor people exploiting,
unethical "third way" hybrid called Crony-Capitalism.

Broadly speaking there are two main types of socialism. Marxist
Socialism and National Socialism (and there are countless variations of each).
Marxism is the form of socialism in which the government assumes ownership of
the means of production, i.e. nationalization. This is the model that the
Soviet Union (Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics), Cuba, North Korea, and
many other nations have embraced. Marx and Engels wrote about socialism as a
stage between capitalism and communism but in my opinion communism is simply a
political name for full-blown Marx-Style socialism.

National Socialism is the form of socialism in which the
government assumes control of the means of production without formally taking
ownership (think Post Office, Fannie Mae before it was nationalized, The
Student Loan Industry, the Federal Reserve, General Motors, and ObamaCare).
This is the type of socialism that was employed by Mussolini
in Italy and by Hitler in Germany. Mussolini didn’t want to call
his system socialism. He used the terms Corporatism and Fascism. Hitler’s party
was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or NAZI Party for short.
Hitler also used the term Fascism to describe his version of socialism.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic
economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and
property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined
to destroy this system under all conditions.” —Adolf Hitler, [144] 1927 speech.

On paper socialism looks great. It looks like utopia. You simply
put a benevolent philosopher king into power and let him and his chosen few
centrally plan all things toward the “the greater good.” Unfortunately for
socialists everywhere socialism does not work in the real world, just ask the
North Koreans. The greater the percentage of the means of production that is
controlled by the government the lower the level of prosperity the people enjoy
(see Index of
Economic Freedom).

Those who argue for a “mixed economy” (a third way) are arguing for an inherently unstable and corrupt economic system because
capitalism and socialism are like oil and water. Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange. Socialism
is based on force. Liberty and force don't mix.

Capitalism (voluntary exchange under rule of law) is not perfect
but capitalism, even when poorly administered, is the economic system that has
created more prosperity for more people than any system ever tried in the
history of mankind. Socialism, (force) even when expertly administered had
never created prosperity. Socialism, whether Marxist or National has done more
harm to more people than any system ever tried in the history of the world. Our country is suffering, some say falling apart, because it is rapidly sliding down the slippery slope of socialism.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Ever notice how government programs deliver exactly the opposite thing than that for which they a
re named? Consider these three examples, The "Affordable" Health Care Act, The "Patriot" Act,

and Social "Security."

The "Affordable Health Care Act" (aka ObamaCare) is providing anything but affordable health care. Most of those few who were able to get into the Affordable Health Care "Market Places," i.e. government run insurance distribution sites got big-time sticker shock. The Affordable Health Care Act is projected to run up trillions in debt over the next few years, create incentives that encourage established doctors to fold up their tents and would-be doctors to go into banking or something else that smart people can make money at. Shortages, shortfalls, and long waiting lines are projected by experts from all sides. In short the Affordable Health Care Act is anything but affordable.

The Patriot Act resulted in a massive increase in governmental intrusion. The government has admitted reading every email that every American writes, listening to every phone call, watching everyone do everything with visible and hidden cameras, grabbing US citizens in the dead of night and renditioning them off to black interrogation sites, and much, much more. The Patriot Act violates the individual liberty of US Citizens in countless ways. The Patriot Act is anything but patriotic.

Social Security was intended to provide retirement insurance for folks who were not able to save enough money to fund their own retirement, a "safety-net." But the Social Security "trust fund" was raided by the government long ago. This massive, centrally planned program is now trillions of dollars in the hole. Social Security in its current form is doomed. Unless major reforms are made soon it will collapse under the weight of massive unfunded liabilities. Social Security does anything but make society more secure.

Since government programs tend to deliver exactly the opposite thing than that for which they are named I say why not cut to the chase? Why not give them names that represent the thing that they will actually do? For starters, I propose renaming these three major government programs. Instead of the Affordable Health Care act, call it what it is the Unaffordable Health Care Act, Instead of Patriot Act, call it what it is, the Unpatriotic Act, instead of Social Security, call it what it is Social Insecurity!

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Ed
Schultz, host of the Ed Show on MSNBC, spoke with a minister who opposes the
Affordable Health Care law (aka ObamaCare).The minister argued that ObamaCare was costly and basically a bad deal
for America.Mr. Schultz told the
minister that millions of Americans who are currently uninsured will be
provided health insurance through ObamaCare.He also pointed out that under ObamaCare no one can be denied insurance
because of pre-existing conditions.Then
Mr. Schultz asked the minister to make the moral case for denying insurance to
these currently uninsured people and to make the moral case
against ObamaCare.The minister's
response was weak. He seemed unprepared for the question. Here's how I think
the minister should have responded.

Mr.
Schultz is it moral to steal things from other people? Is it moral to use force
to make other people do what you want them to do against their will? Is it
moral to lie? Is a law that causes people to suffer and die needlessly moral? ObamaCare
is based on the immoral principles of force, theft, and dishonesty.

Health
care is a limited resource.Today we
have the best quality and the greatest quantity of health care on Earth right
here in the United States and it is available to everyone. Health care costs money and there is no way a person can know in advance just how expensive
it might be. Insurance is a service that is available to those who want to
insure their risk against these unknown future costs.Some people choose to buy insurance to reduce
their risk; some people do not wish to make this investment. Under ObamaCare
the government will use force to make everyone purchase insurance whether they
want to or not.Mr. Schultz it is not
right to make a person buy something that they do not want even if someone else
believes that that something is good for that person.Forcing another person to act against his or
her will is immoral.

Under ObamaCare
no one can be denied insurance for any reason including a pre-existing condition
therefore the cost of insurance will increase exponentially.ObamaCare empowers the government to impose
new taxes to subsidize the insurance companies and other special interests
to cover this cost gap. These are additional tax dollars that most Americans would rather keep
and use to support their families.Taking money that taxpayers have earned with their own labor and giving that money to
government selected insurance companies and other special interests is nothing
short of theft.Mr. Schultz theft is
immoral.

Under ObamaCare,
“unlimited” amounts of health care will now be "free" to
millions of people who would previously have been expected to pay for those
limited resources.But there are not
enough doctors and other medical professionals to provide unlimited quantities
of health care to millions of people for free and there never will be.ObamaCare promises unlimited access to
limited resources. This promise is a lie that will hurt everyone, the poorest
among us most of all.Mr. Schultz, Lying
is immoral.

The
Affordable Health Care Act (ObamaCare) is a vast maze of government policies,
procedures, rules, restrictive regulations, and micro-controls that will be
anything but affordable.ObamaCare will
greatly increase the amount of waste and bureaucracy in all aspects of the
health care and insurance industries. ObamaCare is based on the economic
fantasy that a government bureaucrats can outperform a competitive market economy.No way.

The ObamaCare
bureaucracy will stifle innovation, drive costs up and reduce the quality,
quantity, and availability of health care resources in the United States. ObamaCare
is a bloated, costly, bureaucratic system designed to transform the world's
best health care system into something that looks a lot like the Department of
Motor Vehicles.Under the bureaucratic
morass that is ObamaCare millions will suffer and die as they wait for innovations that
never emerge, and millions more, mostly poor people, will stand in line for
years waiting for doctors that never became doctors because ObamaCare made it
unprofitable for them to do so. Under the ObamaCare bureaucracy people will suffer
and people will die who would not have suffered and would not have died had
this law based in economic fantasy never been imposed upon the American people.

Mr.
Schultz ObamaCare is immoral because it is based on the immoral principles of
force, theft, and dishonesty. For the sake of our nation and
especially for those less fortunate who will suffer the most, this immoral law
must be de-funded and overturned. Thank
you for having me on your show.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

I'm watching the President on TV as he gives his State of the Union address. The President is a master of double-speak. Just listen to what he says and translate the double speak back to reality. Investments = Tax money spent on government boondoggles (e.g. the nearly one trillion dollar failed stimulus package). Revenue = tax increases. Level playing field = take from producers and give to takers and special interests. Climate change = shutting down the private sector for the sake of special interests. Gun control = termination of the second amendment (i.e. termination of the inalienable right of self-defense). Alternative energy investments = pouring taxpayer money into boondoggle technologies e.g. ethanol, windmills, electric cars, and solar panels.

To the president, free market = government takeover of healthcare, the auto industry, the finance industry, and more. In the President's double speak responsible business management = massive, crippling regulations that do nothing to keep us safer, healthier, or protect our environment while crushing innovation. Initiatives = government spending on special interests when the government is broke. To the president job creation = government jobs, i.e. jobs paid for by tax money. Investment in education = money thrown down the failed rat-hole of government schools. Immigration reform = amnesty for illegal immigrants at the expense of legal immigrants. The president's paycheck "fairness act" = social engineering. His recommended minimum wage increases = forcing employers to pay pay people more than they can afford to pay so that thousands of entry level workers don't get hired at all. Shared prosperity = forced equality of outcome and food stamps for all. Improving the voter experience = federal government take-over of the voting process. Violence where guns are used = "gun violence" as if guns are alive and cause violence so therefore guns and the right to self-defense must be banned. Due process for American suspects = drone strike.

I'm turning the TV off now. The double speak is making me sick to my stomach. We have a slick talking nanny-state collectivist in the Oval Office demanding bigger and bigger government and less and less personal liberty. I won't sleep well tonight. After that speech, if you care about America, you shouldn't either.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

President Obama is pushing hard for gun control including
the banning of sporting rifles and other firearms that he deems offensive.Members of the Senate including the Honorable
Dianne Feinstein are demanding gun control and gun bans. Many liberals are
calling for an overturn of the Second Amendment. “The Second Amendment is out
date they say.” This is all very confusing to me.I thought the Second Amendment was there to
protect the inalienable right to self-defense.Unable to get good answers from the media I decided to take a retro-trip.
I jumped into the Delorean and travelled back in time to interview the folks
who know best the meaning of the Second Amendment. I managed a round-table
interview with several of our Founding Fathers, Mr. Washington, Mr. George Mason,
Mr. Lee, Mr. Henry, Mr. Madison, Mr. James Mason, Mr. Adams, Mr. Pitt, and Mr.
Jefferson. Here’s the transcript.

Liberty 301: Mr. President, what role do firearms play in
American society?

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in
importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty
teeth and keystone under independence… from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the
present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace
security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable… the
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve
a place of honor with all that's good."

Liberty 301: Who should be armed?

George Washington: "A free
people ought to be armed."

Liberty 301: Mr. Mason what would happen if our government
bans firearms?

George Mason: "To disarm
the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

Liberty 301: Mr. Mason, the Second Amendment says, A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.You are the co-author of the Second
Amendment.What did you mean by militia?

George Mason: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It
is the whole people."

Liberty 301: Mr. Lee, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Mason?

Richard Henry Lee, "A militia, when properly formed,
are in fact the people themselves."

Liberty 301: Mr. Henry, who should be armed in American
Society.

Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man
be armed. And everyone who is able may have a gun."

Liberty 301: Mr. Madison In my time most countries have banned
private ownership of firearms?Why should
the United States be any different?

James Mason: "Americans have the right and advantage
of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are
afraid to trust the people with arms."

Liberty 301: Mr. Adams, does the Constitution give
elected leaders the authority to disarm some Americans?

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be
construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable
citizens from keeping their own arms."

Liberty 301: Mr. Pitt people in my time say that things
are out of control and that it is necessary that we ban the ownership of
firearms.

Mr. William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every
infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed
of slaves."

Liberty 301: Mr. Jefferson, many people in my time argue
that the Second Amendment is about hunting.What was the main reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms
in the Second Amendment?

Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for people
to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in government."

Liberty 301: Mr. Jefferson will we have less crime if our government imposes more gun control and gun bans?

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of
such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined
to commit crimes."Liberty 301: Mr. Jefferson will we be safer if our government bans guns and adds more gun control laws?Thomas Jefferson: "Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better
for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed
man."

Wow. The Founders were pretty clear on the
purpose of the Second Amendment being the inalienable right to
self-defense.To get the other side of
the argument I set the Delorean for jump into the recent past to talk to a
famous, hard-core liberal, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey.Here’s the transcript.

Liberty 301: Mr. Vice President, should American citizens
be allowed to keep and bear arms when the citizens of most other countries are
not?

Hubert H. Humphrey: "The right of the
citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government,
one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but
which historically has proved to be always possible."

I’m back.The Delorean is parked. It is clear
to me that the President and the liberals in Congress are not on the same page
with Mr. Washington, Mr. George Mason, Mr. Lee, Mr. Henry, Mr. Madison, Mr.
James Mason, Mr. Adams, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Humphrey, or Yours Truly.Mr. Obama, Mrs. Feinstein and dozens
of other liberals in office and out are advocating for the termination of our inalienable
right to self-defense. It’s up to us to stop them, or as Thomas Paine said, "Those
who reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of
supporting it."

It is popular to describe the political divide in the USA
as left vs. right.I don’t think this is
accurate at all.For example the “left”
traditionally advocates for bigger government, entitlement programs, and restrictions
of personal liberties but try to find a “righty” who really wants a balanced
budget amendment, privatized social security, or privatized schools.Everyone in the Executive Branch and most
members of Congress are big government guys and gals.In other words they are all “left,” some are
just a tad more “left” than others.

To me a more accurate way of describing the divide in
politics is to contrast the two fundamentally different world views that
underlie virtually all political arguments; Individualism and Collectivism.

Individualism regards man, every man (or
woman) as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right
to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.
Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association,
cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the
basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no
rights other than the individual rights of its members. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html

Collectivism means the subjugation of the
individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter.
Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective
thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectivism.html

How can you determine whether you are an Individualist or
a Collectivist at heart?Here is a
simple test.Print the page.Put a check next to the statement on each row
that best describes your world view.

Individualist

Collectivist

What’s
mine is mine; what’s yours is yours

What’s
yours is mine

I am
responsible for me

You
are responsible for me

What
I earn is mine

What
you earn is mine

I
have value; others have value

Others
have value; I have no value

I am
accountable for my actions

You
are accountable for my actions

The
world does not owe me a living

The
world owes me a living

Equality
of opportunity

Equality
of outcome

I own
me

Others
own me

My
freedom ends where your nose begins

Both of
our noses belong to the government

Now you know where you stand philosophically. It's not left or right that means much, It's Individualism Vs. Collectivism that matters. As for me, I agree with this guy:

"There is only one kind of freedom and that's
individual liberty."Ron Paul

Friday, January 25, 2013

The Orwellian name change for anything that has to do with
firearms continued this week and last with the President and Vice President's rebranding of the term “gun control,” with newspeak, "I don't view
it as gun control, I view it as gun safety," Vice President Biden said. The term gun
control is now oldspeak. From now on watch for the word “gun
safety” to come from the mouths of politicians and the media because gun control just became an unword.

In case you haven’t read George Orwell’s classic dystopia, “1984,”
Orwell envisioned a totalitarian society in which the government sought absolute
control in part by changing the language from English (i.e. oldspeak) to a new
language (i.e. newspeak) that eliminates “any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism,
resistance to the authority of the state . . .” – Wikipedia.

Here are just a
few of the newspeak terms that the government and the media have created to control
your thoughts on the gun debate:

Newspeak, "preserve"
the Second Amendment. * Oldspeak, overturn the Second Amendment, ban confiscate all firearms, ammunition, and accessories starting with 158
popular sporting and hunting rifles.

So now, using
newspeak, the government (Big Brother) can “preserve the second Amendment” (i.e. ban and utlimately confiscate all firearms starting with 158 popular sporting rifles and hunting rifles),
get “military guns and machine guns” off the street (i.e. ban
popular sporting rifles and hunting rifles), and increase “gun safety” (i.e.
implement draconian gun control laws starting with a ban on standard magazines
and more than 158 popular civilian firearms), and eliminate "gun violence" (i.e. disarm Americans and eliminate the Second Amendment) without actually saying so.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

I'm
crazy about Mexican Coca-Cola. Mexican Coke is the real thing! This is because
Mexican Coke is made with real sugar. Yum! As far as I can determine Mexican
Coke follows the original Coke recipe. This is not true of "Coke
Classic" because Coke Classic is made with corn syrup. Yuck!How
did this happen. Well, you may not be old enough to recall "New
Coke." After getting trounced by Pepsi in the "Pepsi Challenge"
(blind taste tests pitting Coca-Cola against Pepsi Cola) in the 1980s, Coca-Cola
reformulated their product and conducted their own blind taste tests. New Coke
won and management decided to dump their original formula for sweeter, New
Coke.The
switch was made in record time. Almost overnight the original Coke left the shelves
and New Coke took its place. But the people, including yours truly, rebelled.
New Coke was universally rejected. Coca-Cola management was forced to pull New
Coke off the shelves. Rather than return to the original formula, however, they
reformulated Coca-Cola again removing the real sugar and replacing it with corn
syrup. The new/old Coke was rebranded as Coca-Cola Classic. I've never forgiven
them for this.For
years I wondered why they didn't just put the original Coke back on the market.
Then I discovered what I believe to be the root cause, import restrictions on
sugar. You see our government wants us to buy American made sugar. To see that
we do they imposed import restrictions on sugar including those in the
Agriculture and Food Act of 1981. I believe that this is why Coke Classic and
lots of other sweet drinks are made with corn syrup rather than sugar in the
USA.The big losers from federal sugar programs are U.S.
consumers. The Government Accountability Office estimates that U.S. sugar
policies cost American consumers about $1.9 billion annually. At the same time,
sugar policies have allowed a small group of sugar growers to become wealthy
because supply restrictions have given them monopoly power. The GAO found that
42 percent of all sugar subsidies go to just 1 percent of sugar growers. To
protect their monopolies, many sugar growers, such as the Fanjul family of
Florida, have become influential campaign supporters of many key members of
Congress. - Agricultural Regulations and Trade
Barriers, Chris EdwardsScore!
By accident I discovered Mexican Coke at my local grocery store's Hispanic
section. Lo and behold Mexican Coke is made with real sugar, yum! No import
restrictions on sugar in Mexico I suppose? Long story short I now have access
to real Coke and so I now officially forgive Coca-Cola for changing its
formula to include corn syrup (yuck) instead of real sugar (yum) in the USA. It
wasn't their fault really; it was bad governmental policy that killed the
original Coke.Mark
VanSchuyver

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Since the President started his efforts to impose gun
control and gun bans on us I've been paying close attention to the way the
media talk about the issue.One of the
most interesting things is how the media refer to violent
acts using firearms as "gun violence."Gun violence sounds like newspeak to me.Guns don't do violent things.People do violent things.What if the media used this rhetoric when
talking about violence perpetrated with other tools?Here's how the headlines might look.

Two killed in car violence today.A crazed driver purposefully crashed his car into a crowd at the corner market . . .

Fifty-nine murdered in bomb violence. Fifty-nine died and dozens more were injured when a suicide bomber wrapped himself in dynamite and blew up a wedding party . . . .

One killed in paper weight violence. Woman kills abusive husband with single whack on the head with a paper weight . . .

One killed in water violence.Police say a crazed swimmer killed his swimming coach by holding him under water for four minutes . . .

Two killed in stapler violence.A man killed two people today with a metal stapler . . .

Three killed in bat violence.A man used a baseball bat to bludgeon three pedestrians to death . . .

One killed in knife violence.A woman stabbed her boyfriend to death after an argument . . .

One killed in fist violence.Former boxer bashes buddy to death in fisticuffs frenzy . . .

Why do the media use different language when speaking
about violence done with firearms than violence done with anything else?I suspect it is because most folks in the
media are opposed to the right of self-defense and the Second Amendment that
protects that right. Using newspeak helps the media frame the debate in the negative.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Economic fundamentals are not taught in our public schools. Therefore
many of us learned everything we know about economics from playing Monopoly. Don’t
get me wrong. I love the game of Monopoly. But Monopoly is not a game based on
economic reality. The game of Monopoly is based on zero sum game theory.
Someone wins and everyone else loses. The game of Monopoly teaches us to use zero
sum thinking as if it were true in the real economy. It is not.

A zero sum game describes a “situation or interaction in
which one participant's gainsresult only from
another's equivalentlosses.” Unfortunately it
seems that most of our elected officials think that our economy operates like a
zero sum game. Even worse it seems that
most voters believe that the economy operates, as Karl Marx would have us
believe, as a zero sum game. But the economy is not a zero sum game. When unburdened
by the zero sum thinking policies of excessive regulation, excessive taxation, trade barriers, and re-distribution a free society’s economy will grow,
expand, and amplify prosperity.

Consider the example of Henry Ford.When Henry Ford made the Model T he
effectively destroyed the horse and buggy industry. A horse industry worker
living in that time might have foreseen the imminent loss of hundreds of horse
and buggy industry jobs. If such a person applied zero sum thinking he or she would
have marched on WashingtonDC seeking a ban on horseless carriages to
save jobs in the horse and buggy industry. Chanting, “Too big to fail! Too big
to fail! Too big to fail!” If the politicians of the time agreed they might
have employed zero sum thinking and passed laws protecting the horse and buggy
industry from the intrusion of horseless carriages. It is true that hundreds of
horse and buggy industry jobs were destroyed in the short-term but thousands
and thousands of new jobs emerged in the new automobile industry. The
automobile industry increase mobility opening the door for thousands and
thousands of new jobs in hundreds of new and/or expanding industries. The
economy is not a zero sum game.

Here’s another example, the typewriter industry.The typewriter was a wonderful technology
made possible by the ever expanding (not zero sum) economy.Business was great until personal computers
came along. Seeing the looming threat typists who applied zero sum thinking
would likely have marched on Washington,
DC demanding a ban on personal
computers in order to save jobs in the typewriter industry less they be stolen
by new technology. Chanting, “Too big to fail! Too big to fail! Too big to
fail!” Yes it is true that thousands of jobs were destroyed in the typewriting
industry in the short-term but millions of new ones were created with the rise
of the personal computer industry. And the new personal computer industry
opened the door for countless other new businesses thus greatly expanding
economic opportunity for millions of Americans. The economy is not a zero sum
game.

When our leaders taxed and/or borrowed trillions of dollars
from the private sector and redistributed it to special interests they were
applying zero sum thinking. When the government passed the Dodd/Frank financial
reform bill institutionalizing bailouts and establishing a policy of too-big-to-fail
they were applying zero sum thinking. When our government raised income tax
rates on our society’s top producers on New Year’s Day seeking “fairness,” they
were employing zero sum thinking. These zero sum governmental policies are destroying
innovation, crushing opportunity, and preventing jobs from being created.It is time for our leaders to stop institutionalizing
failure and robbing the private sector to support government waste.The economy is not, as Karl Marx would have us
believe, a zero sum game. It is time for our leaders in Washington to stop playing Monopoly with the economy.

Friday, January 4, 2013

I grew up
in the country.Like most everyone in
the country I learned to shoot and handle firearms safely when I was very
young.To us country folk guns are tools
just like any other tool.Their uses are
many, hunting, target shooting, collecting, and in the gravest extreme
self-defense.So I was surprised when
one of my relatives from the country said this to me just last week."I hate guns, especially automatic
handguns and automatic assault rifles. The only guns I like are shotguns and
hunting rifles.We should ban those
ugly automatic military guns that are not made for hunting."Her
comment concerned me because she is very active in politics and has been
considering a run for office."Have
you ever fired a gun?"I asked."No,"
She replied. (amazing for a country born woman!)"Why
are shotguns and hunting rifles okay?"I asked."Because
they are not dangerous automatic assault weapons."She said."What
is an assault weapon?"I
asked.I showed her a page full of
pictures of rifles on Google. She pointed to the AR15 and the AK47."Show
me a hunting rifle," I said.She
pointed to the Marlin Model 336W .30-30 rifle."Which
rifle is more powerful?"I asked."The
automatic assault weapon," she said.When I
explained that the .30-30 was much, much more powerful than the AR15 and the
AK47 she was shocked.“No kidding?” she said."Why do you call the less powerful rifles 'assault' rifles?" I asked."That's what they say on TV," she sad."Did
you know," I asked, "that your son, your grandson and thousands of
other hunters use AR15s and AK47s to hunt wild hogs and other game?""No
way," she said."Really?"I pointed
to the AR15 and the .30-30 again. "Which one is an automatic?"I asked.She
pointed to the AR15."Nope," I
said."Neither gun is an
automatic.""What
is the most lethal close-range civilian firearm?" I asked."Do you know?""No.""Most
people say the shotgun," I replied."The
shotgun? Your kidding!""Think about it.Every police force in
the US and most in the world use the shotgun for close quarter battles with bad
guys.Shotguns are super-lethal.""Well
at least the government should ban automatic weapons," she said."Automatic
weapons are illegal now, accept to persons with very expensive federal
licenses," I said."Really?"
she said."Yes,"
I said."The narrative about
firearms has been totally politicized by the media and by anti-gun
politicians. People that don't know anything about guns are being brainwashed.""Maybe
so," she said."But I still
don't like those ugly guns!"Mark
VanSchuyver